well who decides what fantaticism and fundemtalism is ? i believe those are words made up by the 'coalition ' to describe the beliefs of there enemies .
Fanaticism is being excited, zealous and even obsessive about a subject. It can be applied to sports, devoted followers of celebrities, or even hobbies. Fundamentalism is a strict uncritical adherence to a literal interpretation of an ideology. It can be applied to politics or any set of principals. These terms are in no way unique to religion. As for who decides, that depends on the culture and the core assumptions made by the observer, so yes the terms are subjective, but still easily distinguishable.
and ive thought alot about the subject , i was indoctrinated with religious beliefs from my school teachers from the age of 4 , the fear still lives with me today . i can remember being dragged out of line in school assembly for not closing my eyes during lords prayer .no one ever asked me if i wanted to say the lords prayer i was forced to.
I wasn't suggesting you haven't thought about the subject. You show interest and motivation. I was suggesting that you haven't thought through the implications of your policy. If your point is that religion should be kept out of school, that is a point made by the constitution, so lets enforce that policy instead of making new ones. What you seem to be suggesting, and what age restricting addresses, is the idea that any exposure to religious beliefs constitutes child abuse. My parents exposed me to their religious beliefs and trusted me to make my own decision, which happened to be atheism, and I don't see this as child abuse at all. Your policy would have prevented them from placing that trust in me.
I just think we put age limits on things like sex , alcohol , marrige , criminal responsibility , etc etc because we know a childs mind is very gullible , yet when it comes to religion we think its ok to force it upon children , just to suit our own adult beliefs .
Who says it's okay to force religion on anyone? Wasn't freedom from religious prosecution a big motivation in forming this country? Forcing religious dogma, especially dogma that often entails guilt, hate and intolerance, onto a child seems especially cruel, but what does age restriction really do except make the subject taboo (in child speak taboo = interesting) and prevent people from expressing themselves. Any policy which requires sacrificing personal liberties is a poor policy and should be abandoned for better ideas. Sex has a natural age restriction indicated by a child's body not being sexually mature. Alcohol obviously carries a bigger physiological detriment on a developing body than an adult. These things are not ideological, they are practical.
I am not saying you haven't identified a problem. I am saying you are attaching bias to that problem, conflating the problem with normal religious ideas, and applying a lazy, unimaginative solution which does just as much harm in different ways.
